[CCWG-ACCT] FW: yet another human rights question - more gravy for counsel.
nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Jul 28 18:53:30 UTC 2015
This is getting very angels on a pin, and I'm happy to take it offlist
if it starts to irritate everyone else. It's most interesting though.
All I meant is to say this.
International law applies to and between countries, and has (in dualist
countries) no legal effect inside the domestic law of that country.
You can't prosecute someone in who, as a state actor, unlawfully
deprives someone of their life (apparently quite common in the US) by
relying on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration -- you have to go to
state law on murder and manslaughter (or in the UK, the 17th century
You can't rely the Universal Declaration as black letter law, only as an
aid to construction. (Pre-1998, the ECHR was similarly non-justiciable
in the UK.)
On another topic: "Wooly" is an idiom we use to mean "fuzzy".
And by using I meant that ICANN (as can be seen from their pleadings in
both .XXX and .AFRICA) don't quite "get it" and I think sometimes they
may believe that their job is to be a good referee, not on the pitch
kicking the ball about.
There are high-level principles in Art. 4 of ICANN's M&A, but a distinct
lack of accountability measures, would'nt you agree?
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community